Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/914

 not universally existent, between and. The fundamental truism is the epigrammatic assertion of this distinction.

In short, the single corporeal element of the Ionian physicists was, to borrow a phrase from Aristotle, a permanent having which change; but they either neglected the or confounded them with the. Parmenides sought to reduce the variety of nature “to a single material element; but he strictly discriminated the inconstant from the constant, and, understanding by “existence” universal, invariable, immutable being, refused to attribute to the anything more than the semblance of existence.

Having thus discriminated between the permanent unity of nature and its superficial plurality, Parmenides proceeded to the separate investigation of the Ent and the Nonent. The universality of the Ent, he conceived, necessarily carries with it certain characteristics. It is one; it is eternal; it is whole and continuous, both in time and in space; it is immovable and immutable; it is limited, but limited only by itself; it is evenly extended in every direction, and therefore spherical. These propositions having been reached, apart from particular experience, by reflection upon the fundamental principle, we have in them, Parmenides conceived, a body of information resting upon a firm basis and entitled to be called “truth.” Further, the information thus obtained is the sum total of "truth"; for, as “existence” in the strict sense of the word cannot be attributed to anything besides the universal element, so nothing besides the universal element can properly be said to be "known."

If Parmenides’s poem had had “Being” for its subject it would doubtless have ended at this point. Its subject is, however, “Nature”; and nature, besides its unity, has also the semblance, if no more than the semblance, of plurality. Hence the theory of the unity of nature is necessarily followed by a theory of its seeming plurality, that is to say, of the variety and mutation of things. The theory of plurality cannot indeed pretend to the certainty of the theory of unity, being of necessity untrustworthy, because it is the partial and inconstant representation of that which is partial and inconstant in nature. But, as the material world includes, together with a real unity, the semblance of plurality, so the theory of the material world includes, together with the certain theory of the former, a probable theory of the latter. “Opinion” is then no mere excrescence; it is the necessary sequel to " Truth."

Thus, whereas the Ionians, confounding the unity and the plurality of the universe, had neglected plurality, and the Pythagoreans, contenting themselves with the reduction of the variety of nature to a duality or a series of dualities, had neglected unity, Parmenides, taking a hint from Xenophanes, made the antagonistic doctrines supply one another's deficiencies; for, as Xenophanes in his theological system had recognized at once the unity of God and the plurality of things, so Parmenides in his system of nature recognized at once the rational unity of the Ent and the phenomenal plurality of the Nonent.

The foregoing statement of Parmenides’s position differs from Zeller’s account of it in two important particulars. First, whereas it has been assumed above that Xenophanes was theologian rather than philosopher, whence it would seem to follow that the philosophical doctrine of unity originated, not with him, but with Parmenides, Zeller, supposing Xenophanes to have taught, not merely the unity of God, but also the unity of Being, assigns to Parmenides no more than an exacter conception of the doctrine of the unity of Being, the justification of that doctrine, and the denial of the plurality and the mutability of things. This view of the relations of Xenophanes and Parmenides is not borne out by their writings; and, though ancient authorities may be quoted in its favour, it would seem that in this case as in others, they have fallen into the easy mistake of confounding successive phases of doctrine, “construing the utterances of the master in accordance with the principles of his scholar—the vague by the more definite, the simpler by the more finished and elaborate theory” (W. H. Thompson). Secondly, whereas it has been argued above that “Opinion” is necessarily included in the system, Zeller, supposing Parmenides

to deny the Nonent even as a matter of opinion, regards that part of the poem which has opinion for its subject as no more than a revised and improved statement of the views of opponents, introduced in order that the reader, having before him the false doctrine as well as the true one, may be led the more certainly to embrace the latter. In the judgment of the present writer, Parmenides, while he denied the real existence of plurality, recognized its apparent existence, and consequently, however little value he might attach to opinion, was bound to take account of it: “pour celui même qui nie l’existence réelle de la nature,” says Renouvier, “il reste encore a faire une histoire naturelle de l’apparence et de l’illusion.”

The teaching of Parmenides variously influenced both his immediate successors and subsequent thinkers. By his recognition of an apparent plurality supplementary to the real unity, he effected the transition from the “monism” or “henism” of the first physical succession to the “pluralism” of the second. While Empedocles and Democritus are careful to emphasize their dissent from “Truth,” it is obvious that “Opinion” is the basis of their cosmologies. The doctrine of the deceitfulness of “the undiscerning eye and the echoing ear” soon established itself, though the grounds upon which Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus maintained it were not those which were alleged by Parmenides. Indirectly, through the dialectic of his pupil and friend Zeno and otherwise, the doctrine of the inadequacy of sensation led to the humanist movement, which for a time threatened to put an end to philosophical and scientific speculation. But the positive influence of Parmenides’s teaching was not yet exhausted. To say that the Platonism of Plato’s later years, the Platonism of the Parmenides, the Philebus and the Timaeus, is the philosophy of Parmenides enlarged and reconstituted, may perhaps seem paradoxical in the face of the severe criticism to which Eleaticism is subjected, not only in the Parmenides, but also in the Sophist. The criticism was, however, preparatory to a reconstruction. Thus may be explained the selection of an Eleatic stranger to be the chief speaker in the latter, and of Parmenides himself to take the lead in the former. In the Sophist criticism predominates over reconstruction, the Zenonian logic being turned against the Parmenides metaphysic in such a way as to show that both the one and the other need revision: see 241 D, 244 B seq., 257 B seq., 258 D. In particular, Plato taxes Parmenides with his inconsistency in attributing (as he certainly did) to the fundamental unity extension and sphericity, so that “the worshipped is after all a pitiful ” (W. H. Thompson). In the Parmenides reconstruction predominates over criticism—the letter of Eleaticism being here represented by Zeno, its spirit, as Plato conceived it, by Parmenides. Not the least important of the results obtained in this dialogue is the discovery that, whereas the doctrine of the “one” and the “many” is suicidal and barren so long as the “solitary one” and the “indefinitely many” are absolutely separated (137 C seq. and 163 B seq.), it becomes consistent and fruitful as soon as a “definite plurality” is interpolated between them (142 B seq., 157 B seq., 160 B seq.). In short, Parmenides was no idealist, but Plato recognized in him, and rightly, the precursor of idealism.